posted at 5:21 pm on July 31, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thus do the Clintons move from thin-skinned to authoritarian. No one expected them to be happy with new biographies written by political opponents such as Ed Klein (Blood Feud) or Daniel Halper (Clinton Inc), given that the purpose of both was to rebut the anodyne, campaign-trail preparation of Hillary Clinton’s widely panned Hard Choices and the earlier memoirs from both herself and Bill Clinton. The genre of pre-election biographical critique/polemic has its controversies, but also a long history on both sides of the political divide. Candidates running for high political office, and presumed candidates who release books to get an edge on forming the narrative, know well that they will face these kinds of challenges, and have to either stand the heat or get out of the kitchen. None would go so far as to suggest that such political speech should somehow be shut down.

Well, almost none:

“Clinton Inc.,” which looks at the Clintons from the impeachment crisis in the late 1990s through today, hit the stands to underwhelming figures (though in a sign of the strength of the book industry and the summer slowdown, it’s still set to land at No. 10 on the Times best-seller list, according to his publisher.) The book, along with an upcoming one by Secret Service chronicler Ronald Kessler, includes rumors about infidelity by Bill Clinton. The Halper book also focuses on Chelsea Clinton’s rise within her family’s foundation.

Klein’s book, “Blood Feud,” claims to lay out the messy relationship between Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, replete with quotes from alleged conversations between the first families. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been among those who have questioned the material, saying he found some of the book’s dialogue “odd in the sense that I don’t know people who speak this way.”

Clinton’s team, and Media Matters, have moved to lump all three books — plus a fourth one, by WND writer Aaron Klein, about the Benghazi attacks, due in September — in the same bucket. Media Matters has taken specific issue with key pieces of Halper’s book, including the author’s reporting on speculation that Hillary Clinton’s health scare in December 2012 was a stroke, not a concussion.

“With Klein, Halper and [author Ronald] Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the expense of anything even remotely resembling the truth,” a joint statement from spokesmen for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton read. “It’s an insult to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if not the trash.”

There’s nothing wrong with that response. Politicians and their supporters have free rein to criticize the critiques and to present as much of a rebuttal to specific allegations as they deem fit, although it does tend to bog candidates down if done too often. The adage warning politicians about punching down is particularly apt, as Team Obama eventually discovered when they went after Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, not just because it elevates opponents and lends them your own media access, but it eventually creates sympathy for them as well.

On the other hand, we have the Clintons issuing this as a prepared statement:

In a squeeze on mainstream media, the Clintons added of the authors: “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies. But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Their behavior should not “be allowed“? What authority exists to bar these authors and their publishers (one of which is Regnery, like Hot Air a subsidiary of Salem Communications) from engaging in political speech? A better question: What authority do the Clintons propose to stop political speech?

This isn’t just an academic question or a poke at an off-the-cuff gaffe. Citizens United had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be allowed to publish criticism of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election cycle after having run afoul of absurd and unconstitutional campaign-finance regulations. Democrats howled at the Citizens United decision and promised to reverse it with more legislation, even after the Supreme Court pointed out that one outcome of the law could be to ban books like those from both Kleins, Harper, and Kessler. Barack Obama scolded the court during a State of the Union address for protecting free political speech.

Perhaps we should strap the Clintons to a polygraph machine and ask what they have in mind from their prepared statement that demands that authors not be allowed to write political books about public figures. It might be rather enlightening.

Hillary more than enabled Bill Clinton’s personal war on women. For a time in the White House she was in charge of investigating and harassing the women who said they were abused by her husband. She knew the women were telling the truth. The same way she knew the truth when on the Today Show she blamed the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy for the rumors about Monica Lewinsky.

Christopher Hitchens, who was a hard leftist on everything except the Iraq war, concluded that Bill Clinton was guilty of raping Juanita Broaddrick.

“What are the chances that three socially and personally respectable women, all three of them political supporters of Mr. Clinton and none of them known to each other, would confect or invent almost identical experience which they did not desire to make public. And how possible would it be for a network of anti-Clinton rumor-mongers to create, let alone ventilate, such a coincidence? The odds that any of these ladies is lying seem to me to approach zero; their reasons for reticence are all perfectly intelligible.”

After covering up for her husband, harassing the women he abused, Hillary is just as guilty as he is.

The left still hyperventilates over Citizens v United as destroying democracy – which is a case were SCOTUS decided that you can indeed exercise your first amendment rights and make a movie about the Clintons during an election.

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Sounds great; let’s get Hillary strapped up on national television while we’re at it, hmm?

Midas on July 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Except that lie detectors are quackery (there’s a reason they can’t be used in court). They’re just an intimidation tool. Hillary would probably pass and that would be used as evidence of her righteousness.

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

That’s a great idea.

But first lets to it to Hillary and ask her a whole host of questions, from cattle futures to Benghazi.

Another authoritarian streak. Both Clintons can appear before Congress and plead “I don’t recall” and “at this point what difference does it make” but when the serfs get uppity it’s time to strap them to truth telling machines.

“Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies. But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

For starters as everyone knows, Hillary has zero faith in Polygraphs. An extremely poor turn of phrase for her which possibly might come back and haunt her if she decides to run in 2016.

“…we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the expense of anything even remotely resembling the truth,” a joint statement from spokesmen for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton read. “It’s an insult to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if not the trash.”

now that right there was some definite bull shit. Considering the “victims”.

Unless they were saying nice things about the whore of course. Anything negative about any liberal progressive pig should be strictly outlawed. Only conservatives should ever be plotted against, lied about, investigated, etc.

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.

This is why there is a First Amendment. I’m beginning to think that as bad as King Barky the Liar is, Hillary might just be worse.

jukin3 on July 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Obama is motivated a bit more by Marxist thought than the Clintons, which makes him more dangerous in some ways, but the Clintons are greedy SOBs and have important connections that Obama doesn’t. Bill wasn’t as bad as Obama, but Hillary will have a more powerful executive position thanks to Obama’s actions and the fact that no one stood up to him.

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.